“Stable and steady and reliable” – that’s what the president called Canadian oil yesterday when he called for the U.S. to take greater advantage of energy supplies from our neighbor to the north.

But as I said earlier today in response to this speech – it’s time to turn words into action.

The House took up the issue today in a subcommittee hearing, where lawmakers heard testimony about the economic and energy security benefits of Canadian oil sands.

Here, the facts are clear and are worth repeating: Canada is already the No. 1 supplier of oil to the U.S., and more than one-quarter of America’s daily oil needs could come from reliable Canadian supplies by 2030. At the same time, oil sands production can create much-needed U.S. jobs – more than 340,000 U.S. jobs between 2011 to 2015 alone.

Despite these facts, some are determined to prevent American consumers of taking advantage of this important energy and employment resource just across the border.

The debate will continue, but securing this important resource for the future means taking action now. At ExxonMobil, we’re progressing our Kearl project in Alberta, using advanced technologies that will bring more supplies to market in the future.

As others consider the benefits of more Canadian oil supplies, I think it’s important to consider the following facts:

• Canadian oil sands represent the second largest reserve of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia.  The International Energy Agency noted its potential as a reliable resource: “Canadian oil sands represent one of the few growth areas among non-OPEC countries.”
• Roughly 13 percent of the world’s known oil reserves are contained within oil sands, and Canada holds the largest resources in the world.
• The progressive nature of oil sands technology presents an inconvenient truth for opponents who criticize the process.  As IHS CERA noted in its report, The Role of Canadian Oil Sands in U.S. Oil Supply, that oil sands innovations have been “increasing efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing its environmental impact.” For example, our Kearl project, with significant technology advancements, will result in crude with about the same GHG footprint as other crudes refined in the U.S.
• Policies that restrict the use or supply of Canadian oil, such as opposition to new pipelines like Keystone XL, Section 526 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, and low-carbon fuel standards, will not halt oil sands production; they will only threaten U.S. energy supply, economic competitiveness, and future job creation.

Given this, should we really consider closing the border to Canadian oil?  President Obama doesn’t think so. Nor do we.